But the facilities for what you want are already there. Define a more generic > < and exclude the ones from core.
I'm constantly excluding fns from core which have names I'd rather use in my own source. David On Monday, November 29, 2010, Tim Robinson <tim.blacks...@gmail.com> wrote: > huh? Making a change to the > function doesn't mean you *can't* write > high performance data structures in Clojure. It just means, you *may* > need to use a different fn name as opposed to the common one. > Similarly I could simply use a different name to accomplish my own > function that includes strings, but that's not the point. > > The point is that the common name should benefit the common user (not > typically the folks who appear in this group, but still representing > 90+ percent of usage). Many people would benefit by having a cleaner > easy-to-use intuitive language. i.e '=' works on strings, so why not > '>' ? It's not like I don't get the benefits listed, but I think this > group should also consider audiences outside the arena of expert > language programmers (who are capable of making functions to suit > their needs). IMHO. > > On Nov 29, 1:23 pm, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Tim Robinson <tim.blacks...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> > I dunno, >> >> > Where is this arbitrary point people set where language improvements/ >> > ease-of-use become less important than negligible performance impacts? >> > I ran several benchmarks, with warm up and correct time measurements, >> > and didn't get the impression the change was in anyway significant. >> >> Perhaps not significant to you. But to others it means that they can write >> high performance data structures in Clojure itself that other people can >> benefit from. To me that's far more compelling than convenient string >> comparison operators. Consider the implementation of >> gvec.clj:https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/clj/clojure/gvec.clj. >> I >> wonder what "negligible performance impact" you change would have on that? >> >> It might more sense to put what you're suggesting in clojure.string. >> >> David > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
